Intra- and inter-rater reliability of Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Lower Extremity early after stroke

Edgar D Hernández, Sandra M Forero, Claudia P Galeano, Nubia E Barbosa, Katharina S Sunnerhagen, Margit Alt Murphy, Edgar D Hernández, Sandra M Forero, Claudia P Galeano, Nubia E Barbosa, Katharina S Sunnerhagen, Margit Alt Murphy

Abstract

Background: The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Lower Extremity (FMA-LE) is a widely used and recommended scale for evaluation of post-stroke motor impairment. However, the reliability of the scale has only been established by using parametric statistical methods, which ignores the ordinal properties of the scale.

Objective: To determined intra- and inter-rater reliability of the FMA-LE at item and summed score level early after stroke.

Methods: Sixty patients (mean age 65.9 years, median FMA-LE 29 points) admitted to the hospital due to stroke were included. The FMA-LE was simultaneously, but independently, scored by three experienced and trained physical therapists randomly assigned into pairs, on two consecutive days, between 4 to 9 days post stroke. A rank-based statistical method for paired ordinal data was used to assess the level of agreement and systematic and random disagreements.

Results: The item-level reliability was high (percentage of agreement [PA] ≥75%). Two items (ankle dorsiflexion during flexor synergy and normal reflex activity) showed some systematic disagreement in intrarater analysis. A satisfactory intrarater reliability (PA ≥70%) was reached for all summed scores when a 1- or 2-point difference was accepted between ratings.

Conclusion: The FMA-LE is a reliable tool for assessment of motor impairment both within and between raters early after stroke. The scale can be recommended not only for use in Spanish speaking countries, but also internationally. A unified international use of FMA-LE would allow comparison of stroke recovery outcomes worldwide and thereby potentially improve the quality of stroke rehabilitation.

Keywords: Item-level reliability; Leg motor activity; Scale; Stroke rehabilitation; Svensson’s method.

Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

References

    1. Katan M., Luft A. Global burden of stroke. Semin Neurol. 2018;38:208–211.
    1. Group GBDNDC Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders during 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16:877–897.
    1. Langhorne P., Coupar F., Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:741–754. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t, Review 2009/07/18.
    1. Sanchez N., Acosta A.M., Lopez-Rosado R., et al. Lower extremity motor impairments in ambulatory chronic hemiparetic stroke: evidence for lower extremity weakness and abnormal muscle and joint torque coupling patterns. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:814–826.
    1. Geurts A.C., de Haart M., van Nes I.J., et al. A review of standing balance recovery from stroke. Gait Posture. 2005;22:267–281. 2005/10/11.
    1. Higginson J.S., Zajac F.E., Neptune R.R., et al. Muscle contributions to support during gait in an individual with post-stroke hemiparesis. J Biomech. 2006;39:1769–1777. 2005/07/28.
    1. Wong S.S., Yam M.S., Ng S.S. The Figure-of-Eight walk test: reliability and associations with stroke-specific impairments. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:1896–1902. 2013/04/23.
    1. Burke E., Dobkin B.H., Noser E.A., et al. Predictors and biomarkers of treatment gains in a clinical stroke trial targeting the lower extremity. Stroke. 2014;45:2379–2384. 2014/07/30.
    1. Kwan M.S., Hassett L.M., Ada L., et al. Relationship between lower limb coordination and walking speed after stroke: an observational study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2019;23:527–531.
    1. Aguiar L.T., Camargo L.B.A., Estarlino L.D., et al. Strength of the lower limb and trunk muscles is associated with gait speed in individuals with sub-acute stroke: a cross-sectional study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2018;22:459–466.
    1. Jorgensen H.S., Nakayama H., Raaschou H.O., et al. Recovery of walking function in stroke patients: The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:27–32.
    1. Duncan Millar J., van Wijck F., Pollock A., et al. Outcome measures in post-stroke arm rehabilitation trials: do existing measures capture outcomes that are important to stroke survivors, carers, and clinicians? Clin Rehabil. 2019;33:737–749.
    1. Fugl-Meyer A.R., Jaasko L., Leyman I., et al. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13–31.
    1. Kwakkel G., Lannin N.A., Borschmann K., et al. Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Int J Stroke. 2017;12:451–461.
    1. Bushnell C., Bettger J.P., Cockroft K.M., et al. Chronic stroke outcome measures for motor function intervention trials: expert panel recommendations. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8:S163–169.
    1. Crow J.L., Harmeling-van der Wel B.C. Hierarchical properties of the motor function sections of the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale for people after stroke: a retrospective study. Phys Ther. 2008;88:1554–1567.
    1. Crow J.L., Kwakkel G., Bussmann J.B., et al. Are the hierarchical properties of the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale the same in acute stroke and chronic stroke? Phys Ther. 2014;94:977–986.
    1. Hsueh I.P., Hsu M.J., Sheu C.F., et al. Psychometric comparisons of 2 versions of the Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale and 2 versions of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:737–744. 2008/07/23.
    1. Sullivan K.J., Tilson J.K., Cen S.Y., et al. Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor function after stroke: standardized training procedure for clinical practice and clinical trials. Stroke. 2011;42:427–432. 2010/12/18.
    1. Duncan P.W., Propst M., Nelson S.G. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Phys Ther. 1983;63:1606–1610. 1983/10/01.
    1. Laver Fawcett A. Wiley; 2013. Principles of Assessment and Outcome Measurement for Occupational Therapists and Physiotherapists: Theory, Skills and Application.
    1. Nijland R.H., van Wegen E.E., Harmeling-van der Wel B.C., et al. Presence of finger extension and shoulder abduction within 72 hours after stroke predicts functional recovery: early prediction of functional outcome after stroke: the EPOS cohort study. Stroke. 2010;41:745–750.
    1. Smith M.C., Barber P.A., Stinear C.M. The TWIST algorithm predicts time to walking independently after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:955–964.
    1. Ghaziani E., Couppe C., Siersma V., et al. Easily conducted tests during the first week post-stroke can aid the prediction of arm functioning at 6 months. Front Neurol. 2019;10:1371. 2020/01/30.
    1. Cioncoloni D., Veerbeek J.M., van Wegen E.E., et al. Is it possible to accurately predict outcome of a drop-foot in patients admitted to a hospital stroke unit? Int J Rehabil Res. 2013;36:346–353. 2013/04/13.
    1. Veerbeek J.M., Van Wegen E.E., Harmeling-Van der Wel B.C., et al. Is accurate prediction of gait in nonambulatory stroke patients possible within 72 hours poststroke? The EPOS study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25:268–274.
    1. Barbosa N.E., Forero S.M., Galeano C.P., et al. Translation and cultural validation of clinical observational scales — the Fugl-Meyer assessment for post stroke sensorimotor function in Colombian Spanish. Disabil Rehabil. 2018:1–7.
    1. Dancer S., Brown A.J., Yanase L.R. National institutes of health stroke scale in plain english is reliable for novice nurse users with minimal training. J Emerg Nurs. 2017;43:221–227.
    1. van Swieten J.C., Koudstaal P.J., Visser M.C., et al. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19:604–607.
    1. Vandenbroucke J.P., von Elm E., Altman D.G., et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:W163–W194.
    1. Mokkink L.B., Terwee C.B., Knol D.L., et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t 2010/03/20.
    1. Svensson E., Schillberg B., Kling A.M., et al. Reliability of the balanced inventory for spinal disorders, a questionnaire for evaluation of outcomes in patients with various spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25:196–204.
    1. Avdic A., Svensson E. Interactive Software Supporting Svenssons Method; Örebro: 2010. Svenssons Method (Version 1.1) [Accessed 26 November 2018]
    1. Svensson E., Holm S. Separation of systematic and random differences in ordinal rating scales. Stat Med. 1994;13:2437–2453.
    1. Nordin A., Alt Murphy M., Danielsson A. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability at the item level of the Action Research Arm Test for patients with stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46:738–745.
    1. Hernandez E.D., Galeano C.P., Barbosa N.E., et al. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity in stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2019;51:652–659. 2019/08/27.
    1. Svensson E. Guidelines to statistical evaluation of data from rating scales and questionnaires. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33:47–48.
    1. Svensson E. Different ranking approaches defining association and agreement measures of paired ordinal data. Stat Med. 2012;31:3104–3117.
    1. Kazdin A.E. Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: the ABCs of reliability. J Appl Behav Anal. 1977;10:141–150.
    1. Bernhardt J., Hayward K.S., Kwakkel G., et al. Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable taskforce. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:793–799. 2017/09/25.
    1. Cecchi F., Carrabba C., Bertolucci F., et al. Transcultural translation and validation of Fugl–Meyer assessment to Italian. Disabil Rehabil. 2020:1–6.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅